This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Chapter 4.4 of the National Statement addresses research and evaluation involving people in dependent or unequal relationships: pre-existing relationships in which one party has, or has had, a position of influence or authority over the other. The chapter's examples include health professionals and patients, teachers and students, employers and employees, carers and people with disability or chronic illness, prison authorities and prisoners, and government or service providers and the people or communities they serve. This is one of the most common categories in evaluation, social research and market research, because employees, service users, students and program participants are frequently recruited through the very organisation that has authority over them.
As with the rest of Section 4, the 2025 edition removed the automatic requirement for full HREC review for this population. The determining question is now whether the power imbalance magnifies the risks inherent in the specific research or evaluation activities (NS 2.1, NS 4.1); if it does not, a lower risk pathway is available.
Over-representation, under-representation and contextual power
People in dependent or unequal relationships can be over-represented in research, because researchers who have gained access to a setting find it easy to keep recruiting from it, and under-represented, because gatekeepers with authority over a population can block access, sometimes for protective reasons that nonetheless exclude a group from research that could benefit it (NS 4.4.1). Researchers should consider both risks when deciding whether to seek participants from a dependent population (NS 4.4.1). Researchers should also be mindful that participants in these relationships may be more likely to hold unrealistic expectations of the benefits of taking part (NS 4.4.2). In the research design, conduct, and dissemination of outcomes, researchers should identify and take steps to minimise, mitigate, or manage detrimental effects of the relationship on the research and of the research on participants in that relationship (NS 4.4.3).
A power imbalance is not a fixed attribute of a person; it may be relevant to one aspect of a person's life, such as their employment, and not to others, such as their healthcare. The relevant question for any project is whether the specific relationship at issue could compromise participation in the proposed research, not whether the person belongs, in some general sense, to a dependent category.
Consent process and independent support
Being in a dependent or unequal relationship may influence or compromise a decision to participate; this does not automatically invalidate consent, but it is a reason to pay particular attention to how consent is negotiated (NS 4.4.4). In designing the consent process, researchers and reviewers should consider whether a potential participant is compromised in their ability to decline, whether the approach is made by someone the participant depends on for care or services, whether those in positions of power stand to benefit from participation, whether participants could be adversely affected by their decision either way, and whether there is reason to think participation is contrary to the participant's best interests (NS 4.4.4).
Wherever possible, researchers should invite potential participants to discuss their decision with someone able to support them, and should consider appointing a participant advocate to safeguard their interests (NS 4.4.5). Where the researcher has a pre-existing relationship with potential participants that could amount to a conflict of interest, it may be appropriate for an independent person to make the initial approach or obtain consent (NS 4.4.6). This is not an automatic requirement: the deciding factor is whether the relationship could reasonably be seen to compromise voluntary participation. A teacher researching the experiences of former students years after graduation carries less of this risk than a teacher researching their current class.
No negative consequences, and privacy in shared spaces
A person who declines to participate, or who withdraws, must not suffer any negative consequence, including unfair discrimination, a reduction in the level of care they receive, dismissal from employment, or any other disadvantage (NS 4.4.7). This protection needs to be designed into the project, not merely stated in a participant information sheet: participation status should not be visible to those in positions of authority where this can be avoided, and withdrawal should be possible without explanation.
Researchers must respect participants' privacy and ensure confidentiality of information received in settings such as workplaces, hospital rooms, or residential care facilities (NS 4.4.8). This includes not conducting data collection where it can be overheard, not leaving materials visible to staff or other residents, and ensuring that data is not stored in a way that gives institutional authorities access to it.
Application in evaluation, social research, and market research
Evaluation raises a particular version of this problem: because evaluation asks whether a service or program works, participants may reasonably believe that honest, negative feedback could affect the service they depend on, or that program managers could face funding or reputational consequences. These are not irrational fears, and evaluators cannot simply assure participants that responses carry no consequences when, in many cases, the whole purpose of the evaluation is that findings will inform decisions. Where feasible, separating evaluators from service delivery, aggregating and de-identifying responses, being clear with participants about how findings will be used, and using independent evaluators or anonymous feedback channels can help manage this.
In social research, this chapter applies wherever recruitment relies on an institutional gatekeeper, such as a hospital, school or community service. In market research, panel providers and commissioning organisations should consider whether direct recruitment by an employer or service provider compromises voluntariness, and whether independent recruitment or consent processes are warranted.
What reviewers look for
- A clear description of the dependent or unequal relationship involved and why the proposed recruitment and consent approach is proportionate to it (NS 4.4.3, 4.4.4)
- Evidence that recruitment is not conducted by someone with direct authority over participants, or a justification for why direct approach is appropriate and details about how the risk of coercion will be mitigated
- A stated position on independent consent processes or a participant advocate, where a conflict of interest exists (NS 4.4.5, 4.4.6)
- Concrete measures ensuring that participation status is not visible to those in positions of power, and that non-participation carries no consequence (NS 4.4.7)
- Privacy and data storage arrangements that keep institutional authorities from accessing identifiable data (NS 4.4.8)
- In evaluation, a credible account of how positively biased responses will be managed
Related resources
See Avoiding coercion and Recruitment strategies for related recruitment safeguards, Conflicts of interest for HREC-side management of researcher conflicts, and Assessing risk and benefit (NS 2.1) for the risk framework that determines review pathway.
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.